User talk:Shot info

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for your humor on Talk:NCAHF. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard [1]. --Ronz 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT!

It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --Ronz 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett and all

Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it.

Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.

However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases?  ?? Jance 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) Shot info 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--I'clast 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, last time I looked you where either WP:OR or not. Shot info 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-Jimbo--I'clast 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say WP:N as an example)  :-) Shot info 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.Jance 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what, we have this other thing called WP:N which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars Shot info 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - Thanks again for the humor. --Ronz 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

General on Barrett NCAHF etc

You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Wikipedia, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article.

I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities.

I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Wikipedia or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.Jance 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points).

1. I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true.
2. I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion.
3. I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of Glyconutrients was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). Shot info 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a good thing that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, ya?  ;=) Jance 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) Hmmm, maybe I can use it as a excuse to clean it up hey??? :-) Shot info 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep!

Would you still add smething re Curtis? I am not quite sure what to do. I don't have a hotlink, but a hotlink is not necessary. I don't want to provide a hotlink from a dubious anti-Barrett website. However, the scanned opinion is the same.  ?Jance 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. This is the only issue re Barrett/NCAHF that I find particularly alarming. And so did at least two courts, evidently. Now I am headed off to get sleep. This weekend (New Years) I am going to be working. I need a break from Wikipedia, anyway. If you can, you might peruse the material that Curtis added. I don't think it is a bad idea to have the positions of NCAHF, but the style, wording, and length need attention. I have corrected some spelling, and wording. Oh, and references, even if it is their website, and formating. Jance 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

I need your, Arthur, Ronce et al help on NCAHF. Curtis recreated the NCAHF website here. There is an edit war. It is absurd. I have worked on it, to summarize, and asked him what else he thinks is important that is not covered on the summary. He seems to want to recreate the entire webpage.Jance 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the transition of the picture size and the placement you did on Dr. Scheibner's page. I was wondering if you could look at C._ Alan_ B._ Clemetson and assist in the enlargement of the picture. Thank you.70.171.229.32 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)And narrowing the sides of the frame. Again, thank you. 70.171.229.32 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

Which did you think was ok? The article that is there now, and locked? Or the long 'version' that Curtis wanted to include? I wrote the version that is now locked - the section on "Positions". Curtis lifted large sections of the website(s), and it made that section pages long. The main issue now is the section on "Positions". And I can only speak for myself, but I do not object to "Curtis' taking it upon himself" to change the article. Everyone except Curtis objects to a series of excessively long sections that reproduces a website(s) and is a copyright violation.Jance

Hi

Your input would be appreciated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery BTW, it would be nice if you activated your email. -- Fyslee 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

You voted to keep the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for move to project namespace as a development project. Pass on the message. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about change your vote to Keep or move to project namespace! You can have it both ways. Thanks and best wishes. --QuackGuru 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response on QuackWatch

I made a response on JSE at the article as you requested. My opinion is that Kauffman really should demoted to the bulleted list as opposed to being featured. The grain of salt that we should give the reader with respect to Kaufmann should be pointing out the large chip on his shoulder, which is about the size of his gut. (He doesn't believe that obesity is as dangerous as most health professionals believe. I would hate to be his doctor.)

--ScienceApologist 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thiomersal controversy

I have again removed the site from the page thiomersal controversy. It contains too many external links already (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, also mentioned on WP:EL), furthermore, the page is not a reliable source, and those points are named in WP:EL as well. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

Thanks for the humor. It's a really interesting case. Too bad Ilena has to jump in and prove once again she why she should be banned. --Ronz 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IEEE

I think you once said that you did some work with the IEEE. I have a friend who is a software developer who is interested in going to work with them. How did you with them and was it a good experience? Recommendable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine, I didn't work with IEEE, I was a member for several years and received lots of their journals (their many, many, many journals). I really couldn't say what it would be like to actually work for them, but they treat their members very professionally. Hope this helps Shot info 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I'd remember you saying you did some peer reviewing for them or contributed to their journal in some fashion. Did I mention that I have an overactive imagination? ;-) Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the production and reviews of papers for their journals yes. You don't have to work for the IEEE to submit and/or review a paper :-) Shot info 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't know you've been published. Are you a developer? Which languages? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your still misinterpreting what the IEEE do, they are an electrical and electronics professional organisation. I have not been published per se but have been involved in various committees and companies that have been published (although I am normally listed as a co-author and/or reviewer). I am actually a control and communications engineer however I am now working in what we call in Europe "LV" (ie/ power electrical engineering). Most of the papers I were involved in, were the practical side of process control systems and implementation thereof. But to answer your question, yes I have being involved in programming but using IEC61131 programming languages which I think most programmers are unfamilar with (although SCADA systems often use barstardised versions of VB and C which I have also used). But I am beyond programming now, I just write the Functional Descriptions and let my minions do the actual code cutting :-) Shot info 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Sounds intense. I certainly know VB and C, but yes... never heard of IEC61131 (not a very catchy acronym). So you design SCADA systems to control the distribution of electrical power in Europe. Cool. My inner-geek bows to you. (My outer-geek is tired and must go to sleep.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, IEC 61131-3 has an article on Wikipedia. It's a bit of a stub, so you might want to contribute there. I asked my buddy about it and he's only heard of it and that's about all. He's a Linux/Unix guy and a strong proponent of open source. (Have you heard of the documentary "Revolution OS"?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly you use it to program distributed control system' and Programmable Logic Controllers which are machine and plant controllers (sometimes embedded controllers ... although the few I have touched of them used C...not C++ but C). No I haven't heard of Revolution OS. Are you into PCs and the like? Shot info 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I dig 'em, but I am not much of a programmer/developer. A friend of mine directed Revolution OS and it was pretty big within the Linux community in the U.S. (which is to say it was a very small film). I don't know that it was ever released internationally, so you might not have seen it. Oh, and my email should be activated here. I get emails from other editiors from time-to-time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development

You may want to read here. Apparently there is evidence that you are related to Stephen Barrett somehow (and I think he/she means a blood relative). Is this true? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a party to the arbitration and I have nothing to really add, nor do I have to defend myself against I'clast's quite badly worded diatribe. If there is "evidence" then he can present it (but I can't really see where he says that however). Otherwise, it is just more of I'clast's atypical MO which is him appealing to his own authority... Shot info 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I guess I am just asking you for a "yes" or "no" answer. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend somebody who agrees with his POV and he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No rebuttal required. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? Thank you. Ilena (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why is I'clast is performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through. I note that I'clast hasn't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend you (somebody who agrees with his POV) and who he has defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(editing conflict) I honestly just want to know for curiosity sake. I'm not going to badger you to give me an answer though. I agree with you. This doesn't pertain the ArbCom. I just figured you'd want an opportunity to set the record straight. (**The editing conflict shows why I think you should set the record straight now before more people start arriving and asking questions.**)-- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What "record"? I'clast makes a baseless assumption (incorrect mind you) and the loyal hounds all go yapping? People can ask all the questions they want. While they are distracted asking such questions, the smokescreen achieves it's purpose. For one, I thought you were a smarter editor than that :-) Shot info 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to be clear. The record is the record of Wikipedia. I'm not being a loyal hound to anyone so no need to evade the question. Are you a blood relative of Stephen Barrett? Yes or no? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are acting as a loyal hound unfortunately. By swallowing the little lie, you allow the big lie to go by. I have just read Ilena's user page and now I see why all of a sudden why her supporters are after me. And you still haven't asked yourself why it is important. Shot info 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to step in here, but this appears to me to be close to harassment. You have asked the questions a number of times already. Shot info as far as I am aware is not obliged to answer this personal question. Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The import and demonstration of this COI allegation is potentially both embarrassing and far reaching across the affected Quackwatch related articles, instantly recognizable to both sides. One side of course will await lurid details with bated breath, the other side may try to deny & ignore it, hoping it disipates like a small odor in the wind. I have been patient and tried to engage in repartee' with an obviously capable, intelligent, educated editor of a different, perhaps filial, point of view, rather than just use the COI bludgeon.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to ask, if I say "no", what then? Obviously you, Ilena and Levine have all (unfortunately for yourselves) painted yourselves into a position where you have to assume that I am incorrect in saying so. So I am waiting for the evidence that Ilena is so breathlessly waiting for (why I have no idea) only as I do enjoy watching all of you fail, only as this is a classic MO of you, and Ilena for that matter. Obscure the matter and see what happens. I don't need to defend myself, you need to substantiate your allegations. Of course Ilena is already saying "We (whoever we are) have strong evidence" [[2]]. Is it really evidence or more examples of your use of hearsay and relying on your own authority? Shot info 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't let their harrassment get to you. Ilena accussed me once of being Barrett, and just the past two days first Levine2112 then I'clast accused me of being an ip address based upon no evidence whatsoever. --Ronz 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I never accused you of being an IP address. Did I? Where is this accusation coming from? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all could do with a read up at WP:AGF, including me btw - throwing accusations around can lead to unnecessary conflict and further escalation of a current conflict. If people have concerns about sock/meatpuppetry then there are specific places to discuss these, and knowing a users identity is generally only issue when major COI issues need to be addressed. In such cases requests to disclose personal information should be done in a highly sensitive manner and by a neutral editor. Any questions please ask me at my talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This qualifies precisely. Ilena (chat) 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I confronted each of them with the situation. Levine2112 admitted it, withdrew the information, and apologised. I'clast withdrew the information and refused to clarify what he was attempting. Ilena never responded, but eventually switched to the accusation that I'm part of a pro-Barrett "smear campaign". I don't think there's any assumption of bad faith on my part here noting what they've done. --Ronz 00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologized for bringing your name into the evidence. You aren't a direct party and I removed your name because I felt bad for dragging you into it... and I apologized for that at least twice. However, what I did write was pretty much accurate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, quick, compound draft errors in a lengthy submission can be complex to explain, simple deletion was appropriate. Up too late, and my annoyance with some of your previous tactics that I consider low level heckling, was showing. This was a superfluous "slip of the pen", after reading Levine's point, that should have been deleted before submission.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz I should have been clear - my statement above was not directed at you, or anyone else for that matter. More that we all sometimes need to step back, chill, and assume as much good faith as is possible, whatever the circumstances. Cheers Lethaniol 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree Shot info 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry - am going to bed now so can not follow this up - Ilena if you feel that Shot Info has a potential major COI (so much so that they should not be editing on the COI article) and they are actively and regularly editing these articles, then it may need further investigation. This should be done so at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Note this should only be done if Shot's editing is seen as biased or disruptive on the COI articles. If this is not obvious for all to see then I would assume good faith and leave the issue. Also note Ilena, with the current ArbCom case, you presenting a case to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard may be seen as inappropriate and uncivil considering your COI also. Good night. Cheers Lethaniol 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also before taking the issue to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but if you still major concerns of COI (obvious for all to see) - I am happy to try and resolve this issue as a neutral editor. This will require giving me a detail of the potential COI, the articles involved and the differences where Shot has displayed the COI. Assuming Shot is willing to talk to me as a neutral editor about this, we can try and get this resolved, but it may take a day or two. To pre-empt this Shot you are welcome to send me a quick email on the issue (by going to the link in my toolbox on my userpage) Cheers Lethaniol 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.

Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me[3], after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.

I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)

I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.

The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.

I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.

"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shot, sorry that I brought all of this to your talk page. I guess this was what I was warning about when I thought you should just set the record straight clearly with a simple "yes" or "no". Again, I don't want to badger you on this point so I will stop this for now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The pack of dogs act together and travel together. Sorry if this is harsh (AGF) but if you act like them, and agree with them...well, there is only one way to determine your intent. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you feel that way. My intent is the truth. Nothing more. You seem reluctant to provide us with that. You are under no obligations. Again, I apologize for bringing this to your talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)